Conflict between RPG players and numbercrunshers

[BSPollux]

RPG is a vague and broad term for this and the OP already acknowledged that since English isn't his native tongue. Role playing games used to be done on table tops with pencil and paper and before that it was something psychiatrists did to help with patients and what couples did in the bedroom .

There is a minority that enjoys Civ for it's narrative aspects and I agree that it is largely a strategy game first and anything else second but try not to take RPG to mean a more current definition as it applies to video games. I do see narratives in each of my games but it isnt because i put them there. Any game with a beginning and an end has a narrative and each game I play tells a tale of history because the game is a strategy path through history, even as a number cruncher. It might not be the most interesting narrative (more like a boring history book) but it's still a narrative.

Thanks for saying what I'd have had to say

I'd like to remind all of you, that you dont know if the people who (would) want to play Civ in a more narrative or simulation style are a minority. All you know is that it seems like fewer of these people are actively taking part in the discussion in this forum (and every other). Thats not realy a solid base to decide upon.

I know several people who played civ afew times (read: a handfull of games) and said it gets boring after you know what you can do and what happeneds. They wont be posting here because they allready stopped playing.

I know one guy whos very much into the simulation aspect, and hes playing quite regularly. But he will never come to this board because he happeneds to hate forums (which i find quite strange tbh).

And then theres a group of people who dont even own any recent civ, because they have played an older version i found it to be 'just a wargame'. They wont come here because they dont play.


Its like going to a startrek convention and asking if gene Rodenberry was a good Author. The people on this board are here because they like the strategy. But they dont reflect all the potential audience.

 

[The Pilgrim]

I'd like to remind all of you, that you dont know if the people who (would) want to play Civ in a more narrative or simulation style are a minority. All you know is that it seems like fewer of these people are actively taking part in the discussion in this forum (and every other). Thats not realy a solid base to decide upon.

I'm not sure they are a minority at all. In fact, it surprises me every time to see how many players don't see Civ as a TBS game per se.
I think if someone who is good with words can create a poll, it'd provide a sufficient sample size.

 

[tommynt]

Not to but try a 20 man WoW raid for some impressive AI in my humble opinion.

or join a open ffa civ game.
Thats really something to consider greatly when talking about ai performances:

Ai is dumb - but so is majority of people and players!

The ai is challenging enough allready atm for average joe player at like emperor lvl where ai boni arent that great! At least thats what this forum and statistics tell me.

Civ just totaly lacks the attitude to be a game for "hardcore" players, i.e. so small interest in designing a clever ai and offering a well running mp modus.

So I might have to cancal a previous statement and say:

civ is 100% made for rpg players

- at least if u define rpg players as average joe players who dont try to play good and clever

 

[BSPollux]

civ is 100% made for rpg players

- at least if u define rpg players as average joe players who dont try to play good and clever

Do you want to say that playing a game diffrently then you do is a sign of stupidity?

 

[tommynt]

Do you want to say that playing a game diffrently then you do is a sign of stupidity?

if you define opposite of good and clever as stupid - yes.

 

[agonistes]

I think CiV is fine in this regard. The 'numbercrunchers' as you say get the challenge from higher difficulties. The RPG players get their enjoyment from playing lower difficulties where you can play however you like without repercussions.

Yep. And please continue to allow us to turn all victory conditions off.

 

[eris]

if you define opposite of good and clever as stupid - yes.

Just so I can accurately describe my gameplay in your words, what is your definition of the opposite of good and clever?

 

[The_J]

Moderator Action: Tommy, if you further act like a schmuck, then we'll infract you, so stop it.
And everyone else stops replying to that!

 

[Slowpoked]

I think Civ 5 has a good balance where you don't necessarily have to be a "number cruncher" to win at higher levels. To me, being a number cruncher means you are consistently forced into the same strategies because they are by far the most efficient. In Civ 5 that would mean always playing as certain civs or avoiding certain civs because they are not good enough at higher levels, always choosing the same policies, always avoiding certain wonders while beelining for others, always picking the same pantheons and religious beliefs, always picking the same tech path, beelining specific techs to get specific units and starting your wars at the same time based on that, always using the same strategies such as stealing a worker from a nearby CS, selling off resources early to buy settlers/workers, etc.

Now obviously some of those things are always done at higher levels (selling early lux, buying settlers, beeling NC), but the game isn't so rigid that you always follow the same strategy game-in and game-out. Even at higher levels, there is leeway for certain things, and based on the luck of the draw you may find yourself trying to win the game in different ways. I can't speak for Diety players because I've never even attempted Diety, but up to that point I've always found that I am not forced into playing a certain way every single game just because the AI is so good that I can't win without resorting to the min-max strategy.

 

[Kazdum]

I consider myself an rpg player, that does not prevent me from winning Immortal, not sure about Deity tho. Being a "role player" does not mean you are a little sheep that hold to your words, on contraire, you could also be a tyrant who betrays everyone to achieve your goals.

Its just a matter of perspective and objectives. I dont know why people relate a role player as a mr nice guy who will save the world. Also I always try to bribe one AI to be my BFF, I just keep bribing them all game long. Thats how the AI works, thats how you keep a friend.

I generally try to play along with the history of my chosen civilization. What little I know of them, anyway.

 

[LoneRebel]

Oh my God, I had no idea that anyone who played below Emperor must suck so badly at this game. I feel like such a horrible human being now because I only play on Prince.

But I have a friend who only plays on Settler, so at least I can feel superior to him. (NOTE: One reason he plays on Settler was to start a huge 12-player hotseat game where he plays every single civ. The objective being to have huge and happy and technologically advanced civs with huge armies going at each other.)

But I digress. I believe I saw it mentioned before that the list of options you can do in the game and still win gets narrower and narrower the higher the difficulty level is. On Deity there are only a few optimal paths. And I don't want to do the same thing over and over again just to win. I want to try different things. I don't want to always start with Tradition or Liberty and then plop down four cities as fast as possible and then get the National College as fast as possible and then beeline Education or whatever the hell the most optimal strategy is these days.

That's the problem with numbercrunching; eventually you find the most optimal strategy and then never ever deviate from it. It reminds me of the pro strategies at the highest levels of competitive Starcraft - for each faction, they have build orders for units and structures right down to the second. When I saw that, I was like, "...Seriously?". That's all very well for them, but since neither I nor anyone else here is playing this game for a living (as far as I know), then it doesn't apply to us.

 

[Drakarska]

Moderator Action: Tommy, if you further act like a schmuck, then we'll infract you, so stop it.
And everyone else stops replying to that!

Ok, normally I don't take issue with admin flags and warnings, and I know according to forum rules we're supposed to pm the admins. But this one crosses the line for me, especially since 2 of my minors read these boards.

1) you are clearly insulting another forum member by name calling.

2) you are clearly threatening another forum member.

3) you are clearly demonstrating an abuse of power in your role as content staff.

Now, I don't know if you have any kids or not, and I realize in today's age of indifference we let a lot of things slide we our kids are concerned, but in this context you have shown that you can do absolutely anything you want because of your position here at CFC. Since you have done all this in open forum, I feel that you should be called out for it in open forum.
Your welcome to take whatever action you feel is necessary towards me, and that's fine. But in this particular instance, you have definitely crossed the line in this context.

Moderator Action: Public discussion of moderator action is prohibited under all circumstances.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[whyidie]

That's all very well for them, but since neither I nor anyone else here is playing this game for a living (as far as I know), then it doesn't apply to us.

Thats kind of it isn't it ? There are some things in life I take very seriously and put a lot of time and effort into. This game has one goal, my enjoyment. Thats it.

Bringing it back to OP, I think we have 3 general groups :

Number crunchers/optimizers/strategists
RPG/Narrative/Loafers
Simulators

The one group I can't really get a grasp of is the last one. What makes them different from those in the narrative camp ?


As for the thing we can't talk about, I found the honesty refreshing.

Moderator Action: Later in the thread, you clarify that this last line is public discussion of moderator action. That is not allowed.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[GhostSalsa]

As for the thing we can't talk about, I found the honesty refreshing.

And I found the two recent posts about non-optimal players being able to try different things even on high difficulty levels an effective rebuttal.

I play for narrative but my games are extremely hard. When you avoid repeating the same optimal tech paths every game and avoid trade screen filching (using trade screen on deity to enjoy unrealistically easy starts that invalidate the difficulty level) and avoid only playing as strong, turtle-able civs, and then play the game on Immortal/Continents, you are setting up a game that will demand tactics, flexability, improvisation, aggression, and bravery, as the risk of investing time and losing is very high.

 

[The Pilgrim]

As for the thing we can't talk about, I found the honesty refreshing.

Actually, it's very old. If you read more number crunching threads, you'd know.

 

[Kazdum]

And I found the two recent posts about non-optimal players being able to try different things even on high difficulty levels an effective rebuttal.

I play for narrative but my games are extremely hard. When you avoid repeating the same optimal tech paths every game and avoid trade screen filching (using trade screen on deity to enjoy unrealistically easy starts that invalidate the difficulty level) and avoid only playing as strong, turtle-able civs, and then play the game on Immortal/Continents, you are setting up a game that will demand tactics, flexability, improvisation, aggression, and bravery, as the risk of investing time and losing is very high.

[2]

If people who play as GhostSalsa said are role players, then I am glad to be one

I don't really feel the need to beat a deity AI, I just need a challenging game, does not matter the difficulty. Deity is just the same thing as immortal with a endless spam of units by the AI.

 

[tommynt]

Ok, normally I don't take issue with admin flags and warnings, and I know according to forum rules we're supposed to pm the admins. But this one crosses the line for me, especially since 2 of my minors read these boards.

1) you are clearly insulting another forum member by name calling.

2) you are clearly threatening another forum member.

3) you are clearly demonstrating an abuse of power in your role as content staff.

Now, I don't know if you have any kids or not, and I realize in today's age of indifference we let a lot of things slide we our kids are concerned, but in this context you have shown that you can do absolutely anything you want because of your position here at CFC. Since you have done all this in open forum, I feel that you should be called out for it in open forum.
Your welcome to take whatever action you feel is necessary towards me, and that's fine. But in this particular instance, you have definitely crossed the line in this context.

interesting effort, but you know - moderators at civfanatics are there to keep a "positive atmosphere" and I am OK with that.
I receive often mails when giving answer saying truth but maybe with a negative attitude. And I got no real problem with that.

I think the neat and positive atmosphere keeps this forum that allive - and truth is often just as hurtfull as reality is and thats also something kids have to learn.

But then some1 being realistic about the game and with lot of knowledge about it cant hurt either - so I keep posting

 

[whyidie]

And I found the two recent posts about non-optimal players being able to try different things even on high difficulty levels an effective rebuttal.

Oh yes, agreed. I was referring to the moderator action

I play for narrative but my games are extremely hard. When you avoid repeating the same optimal tech paths every game and avoid trade screen filching (using trade screen on deity to enjoy unrealistically easy starts that invalidate the difficulty level) and avoid only playing as strong, turtle-able civs, and then play the game on Immortal/Continents, you are setting up a game that will demand tactics, flexability, improvisation, aggression, and bravery, as the risk of investing time and losing is very high.

Pretty much the way I play (with extra doses of inefficiency) although Immortal is a bit too much for me.

 

[kirbdog]

I am really fond of this new word, numbercrunsher. I find it delightfully misspelled, insulting but in a playful way. I wish it weren't just a typo.

Yes, I have done literal "number crunching" in my Civ 5 games, more so than in other games. You have to be able to do things like "multiply x by 8 by the number of great scientists to see how many techs you can research in one go" or "count the number of turns it will take to set up a perfect overflow for Utopia" or "determine the correct sequence of movements and attacks for maximum damage with minimum risk" if you even want to feign to consider yourself a true numbercrunsher.

That said, I agree entirely with the original post that these two modes of entertainment, the strategic and the immersive, have different rules and priorities that don't mesh naturally. It is evident to me that the game design aims for the highest level of immersion it can without breaking the fun of the strategy game. The fun of the strategy game, however, is such a dominant concern of the franchise that there is not much compromise made against it.

Regardless, the game has done a remarkable job being all things to all players. The numbercrunshers have always been just the vocal minority in the crowd. When Sid Meier created a game where you discover The Wheel or Iron Working, taking something that would on its face appeal most to anthropology or history students and made it, Civilization, the hugely popular game of herding your tribe from antiquity to the modern age, with this historical setting being the chief distinguishing characteristic of the series, he created something that will always lend itself to story-telling, imagination, and, dare I say it, role-playing.

 

[Hambil]

What I am not found of is how so many number crunchers seem to think it's the only way to play the game. It's flat out silly. I don't play that way. Clearly from this thread many others don't play that way. Even more clearly from looking at the top downloads on Steam most of the gaming community does not play that way.

It's sad, because the Strategy forum could be a useful resource for modders to improve various aspects of the game. Instead, it's just a place where you get told how you are wrong, a lot. No thanks